Annex Mexico or All of Central America?

It was the Texas dispute that provoked the Mexican War. Americans had settled in Texas, they didn’t assimilate, they became the majority, and
seceded from Mexico in 1836.

That was not the first time that Mexico lost territory. Upon independence in 1821, Central America had been part of Mexico, but Mexico lost that
territory in the 1820s. Funny, I never hear about a Mexican "reconquista" of Central America.

Even the Mexican Constitution doesn’t claim the Southwest! That’s right. The Mexican Constitution, in articles 42—48 spells out the extent of
Mexican territory. It mentions Mexican islands, continental shelf, and airspace, Mexico’s 31 states and federal district, but it never mentions
California, Texas or Arizona

Today our leaders apparently see no problem in merging us with Mexico, despite the differences between our societies.

They are merging our countries on several levels. At one level is the mass migration of Mexicans into the U.S. coupled with a multicultural ideology
which encourages non-assimilation and retention of their Mexican identity. At another level, inter-governmental agreements are moving us closer to
some sort of North American Union.

Due to a variety of factors (including national security), issues surrounding the U.S.-Mexico border have been in the forefront of discussion for
many months. The precise number of Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally each year is impossible to accurately determine, but estimates average out to
about 1 million. The motivation for the majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico is, as we are all aware by now, primarily economic.

The fact of illegal immigration presents us with an unappealing choice: either we must grant amnesty to immigrants who have come here illegally,
or we must erect a barrier along our southern border that would be comparable to the Great Wall of China. Amnesty would reward criminality, and would
make citizens of many who no doubt deserve it, but it would also grant the sacred rights of citizenship to a great many scoundrels and criminals who,
having no respect for the laws of their own nation, have come to ours illegally, where they crowd our jails and prisons.

That's is some kind of statement to make. Unless of course you
made a statement directly threatening the president, or another
type of government official, which is a stupid thing to do on any
online forum, not just ATS. There is a major difference in expressing dissatisfaction with the current administration, and a direct threat. Of course
that may not have been the reason you alledgely served time for statements made here on ATS. You could also be a disinfo agent trying to discourage
active ATS discussions on a variety of matters.

You are showing as a new member as of today, but can you reveal your
handle from your previous time here, acknowledging that the threads are now deleted?

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
This addresses neither of my questions.

maybe not, but you sir should realize your
thread's intention was to only give 2 choices.
Add Mexico or All of Central America. You
denied anybody from giving you other choices.
So that means you have a fixed agenda for posting
this thread.

It's very difficult to answer in this thread without seeming like I hate Mexicans. Which I don't in the least.

You have mentioned illegals, always a 'hot' debate, then your article goes onto say that Mexico is largely the problem in terms of illegals, which
is not the angle many of us in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration want to make. So I guess the best way to answer this is --

What are we going to do? Annex every country that illegal immigrants come from? What about Cuba? Haiti? Dominican Republic?

The list goes on and on.

This is a ridiculous idea in my opinion and absolutely nothing good will come of it. Except, of course, more wars. Which is just what we need right
now.

The fact of illegal immigration presents us with an unappealing choice: either we must grant amnesty to immigrants who have come here
illegally, or we must erect a barrier along our southern border that would be comparable to the Great Wall of China.

I would argue that these are not the only two choices. There is no reason we can not crack down on illegal immigration without giving them all
amnesty. It's called deportation. If someone in the Federal government would actually remember what it means, perhaps it would actually begin
happening on a larger scale. That would certainly send a message for starters. Instead of the blind-eye they are currently getting.

Besides, forget the wall for a moment. We are currently in need of jobs. Perhaps a privately owned -- no need to grow government -- border security
company should be started and begin hiring. Obviously the government is incapable of handling it, so lets farm it out.

I'm sure there are Federal guidelines in place preventing an outside company from handling border security, but why should there be?

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
This addresses neither of my questions.

maybe not, but you sir should realize your
thread's intention was to only give 2 choices.
Add Mexico or All of Central America. You
denied anybody from giving you other choices.
So that means you have a fixed agenda for posting
this thread.

I did mention the third choice in my post as well.
I looked for any documents against the Annexation of Mexico on line and could not find anything newer than the arguments presented after the Mexican
American War which were mostly prejudicial. All of the other info I was able to find seemed to be pro Annexation.

Even if the annexation issue ever came up for a vote on a formal basis, and was agreeable to a required percentage of Americans, and citizens of the
Latin, Central and South American countries,(how probable is that?) I would ask just one question, and that is can we afford it?

And if you look at the definition of annexation in the traditional sense as mentioned here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1. the process by which an incorporated city expands its boundaries to include a specified area. The rules of annexation are established by state
law and generally require a public ballot within the city and the area to be annexed. Other incorporated areas are generally protected from annexation
by an adjacent city. Example: Annexation is generally sought by a city to expand its boundaries by taking in an area to which it may already be
providing services.

Many unincorporated suburban areas, however, resist efforts to annex them into the city because of possibly higher tax rates and loss of local control
over schools and other services."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the current financial condition we are in right now in the United States, the answer is no.

Even if the annexation issue ever came up for a vote on a formal basis, and was agreeable to a required percentage of Americans, and citizens of the
Latin, Central and South American countries,(how probable is that?) I would ask just one question, and that is can we afford it?

And if you look at the definition of annexation in the traditional sense as mentioned here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1. the process by which an incorporated city expands its boundaries to include a specified area. The rules of annexation are established by state
law and generally require a public ballot within the city and the area to be annexed. Other incorporated areas are generally protected from annexation
by an adjacent city. Example: Annexation is generally sought by a city to expand its boundaries by taking in an area to which it may already be
providing services.

Many unincorporated suburban areas, however, resist efforts to annex them into the city because of possibly higher tax rates and loss of local control
over schools and other services."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the current financial condition we are in right now in the United States, the answer is no.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by manta78]

Mexico fits, the people of Mexico are voting with their feet by moving to the U.S. in record numbers and we are already providing services to them.

lpowell0627 you can scream 'agenda' all you want, read some of my other posts and you will see all I want is the borders secured.
When you have a dam that has many leaks, you plug the largest first, correct?

Danbones, If I knew the name of the treaty I would love to dig into it a lot deeper.
I have said before that everything seems to point to a hidden agenda.

The office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who last year said he would push for its
ratification, did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for the panel's senior Republican, Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, referred to a
March 2009 statement in which he said his colleagues "should consider ratifying" the agreement during this session of Congress

Mexico's president is appealing directly to the American people and their elected leaders to reform immigration laws, and strengthen gun control
along the U.S.-Mexican border.

The Mexican president was cheered as he entered the House chamber, and was introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you, his Excellency Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, the President of Mexico," said Nancy
Pelosi. www1.voanews.com...

Mexico's president said his government is making an all out effort to go after criminals and drug gangs responsible for the bloodshed. He said
America must do its part by re-imposing a ban on the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons.

Mr. Calderon said these assault weapons are fueling the violence.

"We have seized 75,000 guns and assault weapons in Mexico in the last three years," he said. "On more than 80 percent of those we have been able to
trace, [they] came from the United States."

sure seized?
who bought em?
the guv by proxy?
the drug cartels are the guv down there are they not?
now they are well armed, did they return the guns?
nope they kept em( I bet)

PS
by agenda I'm mean
HEADS UP AGENDA!
how do you seize 75000 guns without getting your head blown off down there?
the gangs blow your head of for sneezing the wrong way

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.